An object at rest tends to remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion. Newton's theories related to velocity are accepted by the kinder-physic community. An entire science is built around his observations of "natural forces" and the equations that "defined" them.
But he did not define them. All he did was calculate them.
Later scientists came up with rules that predicted what would happen in the context of an amazingly predictable relativity. But what was it predicting? Gravity? The interaction of time and space? But it was obsessed with distances and forces as things in and of themselves. It looked for harmony, but only with the matrix we lived in. There was plenty of thought about what is behind the matrix, but that was too theoretical, even for the theoretical physicists and those who were close enough were distracted by life, especially war, but that is part of life.
Do you ever sit around wondering how people can be so stupid? I know you do. You sit and watch the news and you say, people can't be that stupid! They're killing themselves, killing each other, they believe in the most bizarre fantasies in the world, they pay huge multiples for stocks that don't make any money...profit from it! They are destroying the only planet they have and don't really seem to get why that's a bad idea and spend most of their resources preparing to kill each other when they aren't actually doing it. Andy you think, even if we're just monkeys we have have to be smarter than this.
But if you look at human stupidity through the lens of AuT you see the ebb and flow of intellect as a reflection of the solution of the twin algorithm towards or away from intersection, you see irony not as a thing in and of itself, but a recognition that things of necessity flow together and apart.
The stacked algorithms form an onion (layers) of complexity, but it's equally important to see that the form things falling apart and coming together, constantly with only a net coming together or falling apart in any localized outcome. At each layer, the underlying mathematical result is hidden further by the layers on top of it. Newton looked at the results, but he didn't have the tools to look under the result to see what caused them because the layering process was so good at disguising what would otherwise have been an obvious sequentially more complicated solutions that underline not just Newton's forces, but everything.
But we're dumber than the monkeys. Where's the explanation for that? What else can it be other than that imperfection is a requirement of the system.
The Makeup of any group of spiral states tends to remain the same, whether it defines a quantum acceleration or a quantum stillness over any small group of combined states of necessity because of the way that spirals are made of the prior states. A prior state that is moving is going to require a great deal of change to become still and the other way. Newton's law then supports this whole idea. What he accepted blindly as inertia, we now can see is a reflection of the natural tendency of combined items to reflect the status of what is combined to get to the current quantum state. The fact that perturbations occur and often times on a large scale is because the combined solutions hold pockets of rapid change on a scale of x which is difficult to imagine at least by you, I think I have a handle on it.
The approach of the F-series to the gold ratio is seen with the function lim(n approaches infinity)F(n+inf)/Fn
GR(phi)=(1+sqr(5))/2 which is approx 1.618. Interestingly it is also equal to [-1-sqr(5)/-2] of necessity because the first equation is equal the the second equation time -1/-1.
The golden ratio is a relativity function. In two lines (a and b) the golden ration for any two lines is determined where a+b is to a and a is to b. Mathematically: (a+b)/a=a/b
As an infinite series it can be expressed as:
13/8 + Sum(0 to inf)[(-1)^(n+1) * (2n+1)!/(n+2)!n!4^(2n+3)]
It can also be expressed as (sqr(1+sqr(1+sqr1+...)
What AuT teaches us is that infinite series have solutions for any quantum state in the universe.
For the golden ratio this would be GR=1+2sin(pi/10) or 1/2csc(pi/10) as pi is solved for a perfect circle, but we know that pi evolves which is what allows curvature in a quantum universe.
When you use the concepts to collapsing space, you see that it cannot collapse perfectly in the way required by relativity which is a little too clean to be right.
Gravity exists, and it bends light, but the reason why it exists and what it reflects and what information states those photons represent is where the answer lies. For the interactions of space-time with black holes is much like the interaction of photons, wave energy and space against ct4, the stuff we are made of. It looks like forces, but it is only change of information as states attempt to move from one moribund state to the next.
So what happens with a black hole that prevents photons from escaping? What happens to the different ct4 states that fall within the gravity well if they cannot join a singularity, for we know that they can only achieve a stable state in adequate concentrations and if they do not fall within the black hole and cannot become ct5, what happens. The answer lies in the interface of ct4 and ct3. When a copper wire is exposed to wave energy, it carries it. The waves do not cease do exist, but neither do they have the same level of freedom before. The understanding of these interaction, the study of them understanding what they are, will lead to a better understanding of what we are seeing in space and what we see when we look closer on us.
And what if we get too smart. What if we build a disallowed tower of babel? Why, the universe can deal with us without even thinking, a meteor, a supervolcano, supernova, something we have never heard of or perhaps the easiest thing, it will kill our knowledge with our own stupidity, the use of its primary weapon. Irony.
As I continue, we will look at some other question.
What is the effect of spatial calculations and the exclusion principle if there is no real dimension, is there any exclusion principle? The solutions of relativity to black holes are too pure, they have time collapse because classical physics looks for perfection in a universe which can only exist by virtue of the tiny offset imperfections in an evolving pi equation.
And you will gradually see the genius in these posts and you will one day say, I could have hired him fairly cheaply to give a lecture, but I never did. I wonder why not. And the universe will answer you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qcVtEy6G1Q
Monday, September 12, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Building an algorithm 16 gravity and anti-gravity
It's not really fair to say that an F-series (fibonacci series) yields the current universe. That does appear to be part of a single variable algorithm, but the persuasive look of randomness should bother everyone. How coudl a relatively simple algorithm give rise to something as complicated as today. How can I explain it? Well, the easiest way to explain it is to say that if you took a photograph of the entire universe, that would be a lot easier to imagine. If you still can't get your hands around it, think about the alternative. A zillion monkeys randomly typing it out on a zillion typewriters (that's randomness). Still no good? How about a spontaneously generated all knowing god who follows specific rules that he doesn't even need to follow? The idea is that you're being stupid. A foundational algorithm that builds on a very few specific rules is so much more likely that the only real problem is the background in which the algorithm exists. But if you're looking for spirituality, that's whereyou can find it, in g-space.
It's time to talk about what happens when we stop blowing expansion into the Freeman Balloon Universe. This is another way of ignoring dimension, which models fairly well on the actual universe which has none.
There are so many things based on misconception. For example, the reasons that photons leave stars but not black holes. The idea that black holes fall into a singularity is a odd little trap (double entendre) and one which I fell into originally. Only when I noticed they were moving with the rest of the universe did I realize the mistake. So why no photons? It's pretty simple, they are not trapped, they are compressed out or into the higher compression state. This doesn't stop black holes from attracting light, however or space. In fact, time dilation requires that space be compressed in the proximity to any object with sufficient mass, even ct4 scale materials which are exponentially less dense than black holes. A side note-the idea of miniature black holes making up dark matter is so absurd that it is absurd. All ct5 states are exponentially more dense that ct4 states, it just works out that way. Anything else would be unstable. It might be created in a laboratory but as soon as the compression forces were removed it would break up and it would only be dense ct4, not ct5.
Now some of you are going to cling to black holes of the type in The Einstein Hologram Universe and that is my wrong turn also. Since it remains possible (if outrageous) that book remains in print and you're welcome to read its misleading pages and who know it may be right. Because the AuT universe doesn't give a crap. It makes me point out the way that things really work for its own purposes and it can snuff me out (or you out) whenever it takes a mind to and if its going to happen in the next 10 minutes, that was also the case 50 billion years ago.
That 13.7 billion year ago start to the universe is utter nonsense since x wasn't large enough for even ct4 to exist in it's present form at 13.7 billion years from the true start. Note you have all the information to do that but, you are correct, it wasn't in the book. That was my mistake. It is, however, in this blog (the spreadsheet allowing you to determine how much information is in the universe from the 16 billion expansion universe that we're in (note it may be 50x13.7 billion years too,but I'm going with the shorter time till I have a minute to unravel the post). Whatever the age, it's based on AuT theory, not the nonsense that is spouted by the kinderphysic community.
At full compression, the "big bang" suggests and explosion, but there is no explosion, although some force changes the compression of the universe. What is it?
This is an anti-gravity defined by the fact that an inflection point has been reached where a net inward movement is suddenly replaced with a net out ward force.
This transition will continue according to our estimates for either 16 billion years or 50x14 billion years when the next inflection point is reached.
What is the anti-gravity? It appears that there is a net feature. It currently nets where antigravity is greater than gravity for the entire universe, although for locations where gravity predominates, higher ct states, there appears to be something quite different. As a matter of fact, the fact that we see so much gravity indicates that we are approaching an inflection point sooner rather than later. When that happens we'll see a contracting universe.
There has been a very slight observed increase in gravity of the earth tied to meteor impacts and the like, but do we know that to be the case? It's a slow process, the conversion from expansion to contraction and occurs at such a small level it might be hard to see and may be impacted by the relative stability of the states, that is ct4 states and ct5 states may change slower than ct1-3 states, that is the net anti-g and g for space, photonic and wave energy may change more quickly and even more often. It is worth looking at more, but I have a bike ride to tdo this morning.
ct1 forms a matrix, possibly around the non-linear state (o,1,1-the zero).
The expansive force is around us, perhaps because it is "outweighed" by gravity it appears invisible or perhaps doesn't appear at all, but as the universe shifts and the air goes out of the Freeman balloon model, perhaps it will become predominate in some way and we will see it pushing against and apparently ever increasing gravity with just a different spin.
Space may change itself. instead of an average of 0,1 it might be 1,1.
However, it is more likely the case that gravity itself changes over time. It will take 16 billion (the short time frame) years for gravity to change from "net anti-gravity" to "net gravity" in this model. Now it could be that the transition will take 50 times as long for this change.
However under either it is possible under that spiral theory that gravity has changed so little during the 10,000 years of sort of recorded history that having seen 10,000/16 billionth of a change has not been noticed or it could be that the features of space might change to increase the apparent gravity there while it remains locally unchanged in compression states.
The possibilities are exciting and not quite endless.
I'm just saying, it's a powerful concept, a powerful memory, a bike waits for me, a little motivational music...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToP82VUjrNU&list=RDToP82VUjrNU#t=0
It's time to talk about what happens when we stop blowing expansion into the Freeman Balloon Universe. This is another way of ignoring dimension, which models fairly well on the actual universe which has none.
There are so many things based on misconception. For example, the reasons that photons leave stars but not black holes. The idea that black holes fall into a singularity is a odd little trap (double entendre) and one which I fell into originally. Only when I noticed they were moving with the rest of the universe did I realize the mistake. So why no photons? It's pretty simple, they are not trapped, they are compressed out or into the higher compression state. This doesn't stop black holes from attracting light, however or space. In fact, time dilation requires that space be compressed in the proximity to any object with sufficient mass, even ct4 scale materials which are exponentially less dense than black holes. A side note-the idea of miniature black holes making up dark matter is so absurd that it is absurd. All ct5 states are exponentially more dense that ct4 states, it just works out that way. Anything else would be unstable. It might be created in a laboratory but as soon as the compression forces were removed it would break up and it would only be dense ct4, not ct5.
Now some of you are going to cling to black holes of the type in The Einstein Hologram Universe and that is my wrong turn also. Since it remains possible (if outrageous) that book remains in print and you're welcome to read its misleading pages and who know it may be right. Because the AuT universe doesn't give a crap. It makes me point out the way that things really work for its own purposes and it can snuff me out (or you out) whenever it takes a mind to and if its going to happen in the next 10 minutes, that was also the case 50 billion years ago.
That 13.7 billion year ago start to the universe is utter nonsense since x wasn't large enough for even ct4 to exist in it's present form at 13.7 billion years from the true start. Note you have all the information to do that but, you are correct, it wasn't in the book. That was my mistake. It is, however, in this blog (the spreadsheet allowing you to determine how much information is in the universe from the 16 billion expansion universe that we're in (note it may be 50x13.7 billion years too,but I'm going with the shorter time till I have a minute to unravel the post). Whatever the age, it's based on AuT theory, not the nonsense that is spouted by the kinderphysic community.
At full compression, the "big bang" suggests and explosion, but there is no explosion, although some force changes the compression of the universe. What is it?
This is an anti-gravity defined by the fact that an inflection point has been reached where a net inward movement is suddenly replaced with a net out ward force.
This transition will continue according to our estimates for either 16 billion years or 50x14 billion years when the next inflection point is reached.
What is the anti-gravity? It appears that there is a net feature. It currently nets where antigravity is greater than gravity for the entire universe, although for locations where gravity predominates, higher ct states, there appears to be something quite different. As a matter of fact, the fact that we see so much gravity indicates that we are approaching an inflection point sooner rather than later. When that happens we'll see a contracting universe.
There has been a very slight observed increase in gravity of the earth tied to meteor impacts and the like, but do we know that to be the case? It's a slow process, the conversion from expansion to contraction and occurs at such a small level it might be hard to see and may be impacted by the relative stability of the states, that is ct4 states and ct5 states may change slower than ct1-3 states, that is the net anti-g and g for space, photonic and wave energy may change more quickly and even more often. It is worth looking at more, but I have a bike ride to tdo this morning.
ct1 forms a matrix, possibly around the non-linear state (o,1,1-the zero).
The expansive force is around us, perhaps because it is "outweighed" by gravity it appears invisible or perhaps doesn't appear at all, but as the universe shifts and the air goes out of the Freeman balloon model, perhaps it will become predominate in some way and we will see it pushing against and apparently ever increasing gravity with just a different spin.
Space may change itself. instead of an average of 0,1 it might be 1,1.
However, it is more likely the case that gravity itself changes over time. It will take 16 billion (the short time frame) years for gravity to change from "net anti-gravity" to "net gravity" in this model. Now it could be that the transition will take 50 times as long for this change.
However under either it is possible under that spiral theory that gravity has changed so little during the 10,000 years of sort of recorded history that having seen 10,000/16 billionth of a change has not been noticed or it could be that the features of space might change to increase the apparent gravity there while it remains locally unchanged in compression states.
The possibilities are exciting and not quite endless.
I'm just saying, it's a powerful concept, a powerful memory, a bike waits for me, a little motivational music...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToP82VUjrNU&list=RDToP82VUjrNU#t=0
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Building an algorithm-you are here revisited part 2
The last series of not totally co-existent blog posts need to be drawn together.
All physics has in common theme that self determination is illusory. While there is are limits to what can be measured, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this limitation is merely the over-complication of the process embodied in its features that require two points of inquiry in a single variable universe. The Heisenberg mistake is in focusing on size, which is illusory, instead of mathematical modeling which can be solved for any point with certainty unless the universe is truly random in which case you should close this blog and get about your business.
But all physics rejects randomness. The contribution to non-randomness, to the extent that it can be called a contribution, of AuT is that it explains the purpose of illusory self-determination.
All events or solutions to the algorithm have a common purpose. Amusingly it is nothing more glorious than to begin or end compression/expansion cycles. In the early universe, this would have been fairly obvious, but given the layers, with x of the scale over 10^100 for each quantum instant, and the offset addition of several universes each with different space characteristics and all misaligned, the simple purpose becomes more clouded, especially given the existence of temporarily stable states along with co-existent expanding and contracting 'unstable' spiral states. Having the possibility of any point being recalculated for each value of x further complicates the model, especially if it leads to high x values being present in low value pi solution models. For purpose of the current model, it is worth noting (ad nauseum) that expansion is where the solution of the two spiral sets for any point are moving apart and the contraction is where they are moving together. Another complicating feature has to do with the offset feature of the universe.
While we can be absolutely, 100% certain that two separate points are offset due to the changing solution for the space/pi equation; it is less certain whether for any one point there is an offset. While the model almost screams an offset, it remains possible, if not likely, that for individual points that they are perfectly aligned F-series intersecting spirals of the type discussed in the early model. This would mean, at the point of overlap that you'd have these particles have equal amounts of positive and negative solution and they would disappear to some extent. While this is a disturbing result in some ways, it would go a long way towards explaining why space looks like it does. In AuT, of course, the idea that space would look empty is asinine, pre AuT physicists even knew this. The only real difference is that space becomes fairly easy to understand in AuT and you can see what it looks like at least mathematically.
The problem with having aligned individual states is that it complicates a simple math model and it begs the question of why those individual points would not just collapse instead of stacking as the model requires for everything else. But I digress.
The point is that the universe has a very simple fundamental purpose and while it is elegant in its simplicity it is far from romantic. The 9/11 hijackers were not, fundamentally, making some grand statement about infidels, they were merely carrying their share of compression/decompression cycles and did nothing more horrible or glorious than the stamping machine that spit out the rivets that went into the several planes that were hijacked. To fear, glorify and hate them is the job of morons, not physicists. Physicists' jobs are to make better and better ways of achieving those cycles because the cycles demand it and, strangely, to explain why what we do is absurd.
There are some challenges here.
The first is to determine how two different state universes add up. Since they are offset, adding them together is complicated from the simple F-series model. you don't have 1,11,111, instead you have the pi' function constantly changing the angle of overlap between points so you have (geo(1),geo(1)geo(2), etc) so that the points added are offset by a geometry function which gives us the dimensional qualities of the universe we experience.
The second is to explain when compression occurs. As the geometry function gives the illusion of dimension, so too does the compression function give the illusion of solidity. While we can look at compression as the transition from 1,1,1 to 11,11,11 to 111,111,111 and so on, and while we can see the compression and decompression cycles as function of F-series algorithms, the way that they are aligned and the reason they align according to the equation (fseries(n))^2^n remains to be perfectly defined.
There are a finite number of ways for this to be solved, but the appearance of randomness in the solution is required at sufficiently high values of x only because of our observations. However, the appearance of randomness hides a relatively simple model of clear cause and effect.
All physics has in common theme that self determination is illusory. While there is are limits to what can be measured, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this limitation is merely the over-complication of the process embodied in its features that require two points of inquiry in a single variable universe. The Heisenberg mistake is in focusing on size, which is illusory, instead of mathematical modeling which can be solved for any point with certainty unless the universe is truly random in which case you should close this blog and get about your business.
But all physics rejects randomness. The contribution to non-randomness, to the extent that it can be called a contribution, of AuT is that it explains the purpose of illusory self-determination.
All events or solutions to the algorithm have a common purpose. Amusingly it is nothing more glorious than to begin or end compression/expansion cycles. In the early universe, this would have been fairly obvious, but given the layers, with x of the scale over 10^100 for each quantum instant, and the offset addition of several universes each with different space characteristics and all misaligned, the simple purpose becomes more clouded, especially given the existence of temporarily stable states along with co-existent expanding and contracting 'unstable' spiral states. Having the possibility of any point being recalculated for each value of x further complicates the model, especially if it leads to high x values being present in low value pi solution models. For purpose of the current model, it is worth noting (ad nauseum) that expansion is where the solution of the two spiral sets for any point are moving apart and the contraction is where they are moving together. Another complicating feature has to do with the offset feature of the universe.
While we can be absolutely, 100% certain that two separate points are offset due to the changing solution for the space/pi equation; it is less certain whether for any one point there is an offset. While the model almost screams an offset, it remains possible, if not likely, that for individual points that they are perfectly aligned F-series intersecting spirals of the type discussed in the early model. This would mean, at the point of overlap that you'd have these particles have equal amounts of positive and negative solution and they would disappear to some extent. While this is a disturbing result in some ways, it would go a long way towards explaining why space looks like it does. In AuT, of course, the idea that space would look empty is asinine, pre AuT physicists even knew this. The only real difference is that space becomes fairly easy to understand in AuT and you can see what it looks like at least mathematically.
The problem with having aligned individual states is that it complicates a simple math model and it begs the question of why those individual points would not just collapse instead of stacking as the model requires for everything else. But I digress.
The point is that the universe has a very simple fundamental purpose and while it is elegant in its simplicity it is far from romantic. The 9/11 hijackers were not, fundamentally, making some grand statement about infidels, they were merely carrying their share of compression/decompression cycles and did nothing more horrible or glorious than the stamping machine that spit out the rivets that went into the several planes that were hijacked. To fear, glorify and hate them is the job of morons, not physicists. Physicists' jobs are to make better and better ways of achieving those cycles because the cycles demand it and, strangely, to explain why what we do is absurd.
There are some challenges here.
The first is to determine how two different state universes add up. Since they are offset, adding them together is complicated from the simple F-series model. you don't have 1,11,111, instead you have the pi' function constantly changing the angle of overlap between points so you have (geo(1),geo(1)geo(2), etc) so that the points added are offset by a geometry function which gives us the dimensional qualities of the universe we experience.
The second is to explain when compression occurs. As the geometry function gives the illusion of dimension, so too does the compression function give the illusion of solidity. While we can look at compression as the transition from 1,1,1 to 11,11,11 to 111,111,111 and so on, and while we can see the compression and decompression cycles as function of F-series algorithms, the way that they are aligned and the reason they align according to the equation (fseries(n))^2^n remains to be perfectly defined.
There are a finite number of ways for this to be solved, but the appearance of randomness in the solution is required at sufficiently high values of x only because of our observations. However, the appearance of randomness hides a relatively simple model of clear cause and effect.
Friday, September 9, 2016
the k bomb
In my last blog I suggested that we were either 2% into the expansion phase or 98% of the way through it. I'm uncomfortable with the 2% but I'm not so sure it's the wrong number. After all, the universe doesn't really care whether I'm comfortable or not. If it does, it obviously wants me uncomfortable because we're not writing this togehter. I have no support, but I'm going to move on to the destructive phase of things and talk about the k-bomb. Yes, I promised you that AuT theory would not disappoint you, that you'd be able do do something destructive with it. You just have to be patient.
Now that I have predicted the "end" of our present universe, it will be fairly easy (because of the addititive quality of the F-series) to predict the actual age of the universe. How, you ask?
It's actually quite simple, the complex looking universe being fairly simple. First knowing the universe is 13.7 billion years old and, I'm going to use the shorter period for this entry, about 2.3 billion years from now it will start to contract (it's a curved function because it's averaged because of the pi function that ensures that it will never end as long as x can get bigger, any single function would have a long stable period, we can figure out from the expansion period what the contraction period will look like (there are many charts in the book showing the period when the spirals come together). We know this will be longer for each universe based on the equation in that really long spreadsheet I put in one of the posts a few months back.
Anyway, the value of x for our universe (a subset of the value of x for all the universes so far) is roughly 32 billion years converted into seconds. and then multiplied by 10^39. That is a lot of x, but it's not as big a number as you'd think because the universe is defined by quantum moments which takes a lot less information that defininging it over a bunch of quantum moments. In fact, I daresay my spreadsheet may actually cover that number in which case there would only be a few hundred (at most) big bangs so far, each adding to the x of the next one, but all those can be summed up. See if we know how big x is for our universe approximately, we can get the exact number by looking for the closes spiral expansion or compression that matches it. Part of that chart, by the way, appears in "A spiral in amber" although it did not make the cut for "Spirals in amber" but you can find it in this blog if you spend some time looking. Or you could write me and ask me to send you a copy of the spreadsheet, maybe I would, who knows?
Or, since you are too lazy to pick up the phone and call me, you can wait and I'll take some time to solve it in here.
But what's that? This blog entry is called "the k-bomb." We all know about Einstein and his H bomb. That uses the conversion factor for ct4-ct3 to blow things up. More particularly, the algorithm solves for us building 10,000 years of post ice-age society just so we can compress chemicals and explode them in order to satisfy the compression or expansion cycle for a particular group of spirals. Yes, the crazy north koreans are just fulfilling an expansion/compression cycle as mandated by the F-series, pi building offset universe that we live in. It's a lot of absurdity if you look at them, just to do some spiral decompression, but stupid as they are, if you look at the superpowers (usa, russia and china) of nuclear weapons, you see we're doing it on a much bigger scale and if you look at world war ii, you basically see the same process. Even so, compared to the activity within the earth or at the sun, it's a relatively minor amount of bother or algorithm solution in the grand schem of things. That is what we are, however. We are algorithm solving results. Well, you are anyway. Just kidding, we all are.
But we're talking about a weapon more powerful than Einsteins. A k bomb, which I now believe I have enough information to start on, can not only destroy an entire planet, but in relatively short order a solar system and even, given time, a galaxy. Well, it would take a really, really long time to destroy a galaxy and it wouldn't really destroy any of it, but it's a really powerful weapon that if applied properly could do a lot of damage, that is if you call change damage. I'm not sure you can really call solving a math problem damage. Of course, fortunately, it's rather hard to detonate a k-bomb, although its surprisingly easy to build. No one has known how to build one before me, of course.
I will get to that.
The greeks, not surprisingly, given their early work into Algorithm Universe Theory, actually envisioned the k bomb in their mythology. It's hard to believe that such a weapon was imagined 2500 years ago, but there you have it. They envisioned the weapon and its results, but it was shrowded in superstition, or perhaps they actually did see it and hid it on purpose, who knows?
There is some suggestion that they tried to build one over several generations, but it failed if they did and any attempt in my opinion was probably silly, like a child designing a nuclear weapons with tinkertoys. You might be able to put something together that looked like a nuclear weapon, but it wouldn't be capable of detonation.
My k bomb should be capable of detonation with the same awful result that the greeks envisioned. Imagine that?
Now that I have predicted the "end" of our present universe, it will be fairly easy (because of the addititive quality of the F-series) to predict the actual age of the universe. How, you ask?
It's actually quite simple, the complex looking universe being fairly simple. First knowing the universe is 13.7 billion years old and, I'm going to use the shorter period for this entry, about 2.3 billion years from now it will start to contract (it's a curved function because it's averaged because of the pi function that ensures that it will never end as long as x can get bigger, any single function would have a long stable period, we can figure out from the expansion period what the contraction period will look like (there are many charts in the book showing the period when the spirals come together). We know this will be longer for each universe based on the equation in that really long spreadsheet I put in one of the posts a few months back.
Anyway, the value of x for our universe (a subset of the value of x for all the universes so far) is roughly 32 billion years converted into seconds. and then multiplied by 10^39. That is a lot of x, but it's not as big a number as you'd think because the universe is defined by quantum moments which takes a lot less information that defininging it over a bunch of quantum moments. In fact, I daresay my spreadsheet may actually cover that number in which case there would only be a few hundred (at most) big bangs so far, each adding to the x of the next one, but all those can be summed up. See if we know how big x is for our universe approximately, we can get the exact number by looking for the closes spiral expansion or compression that matches it. Part of that chart, by the way, appears in "A spiral in amber" although it did not make the cut for "Spirals in amber" but you can find it in this blog if you spend some time looking. Or you could write me and ask me to send you a copy of the spreadsheet, maybe I would, who knows?
Or, since you are too lazy to pick up the phone and call me, you can wait and I'll take some time to solve it in here.
But what's that? This blog entry is called "the k-bomb." We all know about Einstein and his H bomb. That uses the conversion factor for ct4-ct3 to blow things up. More particularly, the algorithm solves for us building 10,000 years of post ice-age society just so we can compress chemicals and explode them in order to satisfy the compression or expansion cycle for a particular group of spirals. Yes, the crazy north koreans are just fulfilling an expansion/compression cycle as mandated by the F-series, pi building offset universe that we live in. It's a lot of absurdity if you look at them, just to do some spiral decompression, but stupid as they are, if you look at the superpowers (usa, russia and china) of nuclear weapons, you see we're doing it on a much bigger scale and if you look at world war ii, you basically see the same process. Even so, compared to the activity within the earth or at the sun, it's a relatively minor amount of bother or algorithm solution in the grand schem of things. That is what we are, however. We are algorithm solving results. Well, you are anyway. Just kidding, we all are.
But we're talking about a weapon more powerful than Einsteins. A k bomb, which I now believe I have enough information to start on, can not only destroy an entire planet, but in relatively short order a solar system and even, given time, a galaxy. Well, it would take a really, really long time to destroy a galaxy and it wouldn't really destroy any of it, but it's a really powerful weapon that if applied properly could do a lot of damage, that is if you call change damage. I'm not sure you can really call solving a math problem damage. Of course, fortunately, it's rather hard to detonate a k-bomb, although its surprisingly easy to build. No one has known how to build one before me, of course.
I will get to that.
The greeks, not surprisingly, given their early work into Algorithm Universe Theory, actually envisioned the k bomb in their mythology. It's hard to believe that such a weapon was imagined 2500 years ago, but there you have it. They envisioned the weapon and its results, but it was shrowded in superstition, or perhaps they actually did see it and hid it on purpose, who knows?
There is some suggestion that they tried to build one over several generations, but it failed if they did and any attempt in my opinion was probably silly, like a child designing a nuclear weapons with tinkertoys. You might be able to put something together that looked like a nuclear weapon, but it wouldn't be capable of detonation.
My k bomb should be capable of detonation with the same awful result that the greeks envisioned. Imagine that?
Thursday, September 8, 2016
You are here-revisited rate of change-expansion
Occasionally in this blog, I make a slight divergence to determine where the heck we are in the universe. I do this mainly to remind you with relatively simple mathematics how much smarter I am than everyone else. Honestly, no one believes that.
Today, I will tell you where I expect the next inflection point to be and why. At this point, inflection point, which I am going to give you with some specificity (using several assumptions) you will know exactly when the universe will suddenly stop expanding and start contracting.
Prepare to set your alarm clock.
Don't worry about reading fast, it won't happen while I'm typing this or while your reading it unless you're reading it far, far into the future after everyone has signed a petition acknowledging that I was smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
As most kindergarten physicists know the universe is expanding and that the farther galaxies "appear" to be be moving faster. We know why this is the case using AuT, but Kindergarten physicists do not know, so I will refer to the fact that the average inflection point over all the spirals stacked to form the universe is in a net expansion state which relates to an inflection point that occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is affectionately known as "the most recent inflection point from net compression to expansion" or "the big bang" to the kinder (a little German there just for you).
For purposes of this we are going to (1) accept relativistic effects and then (2) reject them and finally (3) we're going to correct for CBR which is the only thing that matters since it's the only point of reference relative to the beginning and end of things for reasons that will be clear..
The farthest object we see is at 13.3 bln light years and is moving away from us (1) at three times the speed of light or (2) the speed of light less a bit. [remember that 1 accepts the relativistic effects and 2, the more accurate measure, rejects them]. However, (3) for CBR it's not moving at all. If it is, as I will discuss shortly, then the universe is really old and you better grab your hat and umbrella.
The universe is young! Relatively speaking, I believe it is 1/44th of its way towards the beginning of its contraction phase.
Let me explain.
The farthest object is 13.3 bln light years away. In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old that means it's essentially at the edge of the universe and it took 13.3 billion years for it's light to reach us which was some 420 million years after it formed. It's essentially at the edge of the universe, but whether we're going to stick with 13.3 billion light years or the 13.7 doesn't matter much because the extra distance isn't important for rounding this off. If you really want to put an alarm on your phone and it will handle the numbers, you can try to get more precise, you'll have the math.
According to relativity the distant galaxy is moving at (1) 3c relative to us which is (3) zero relative to CBR but it's really moving at (2) the speed of light (c) and we know that to be the case because...the initial spirals are all space moving at the speed of light and this is only slowing down a little because it's only 400 million years old. I.E. ct1 changes at the speed of light if you put a speed to it at all.
You and I are in a galaxy that's moving at the relatively slow speed of 627km/s. Earth is actually moving slower than the galaxy relative to cbr but if you start comparing apples to pomegranates you're going to end up with a fruit salad. Anyway, we're a mere 25000 light years from the center of the 13.7 billion light year across universe. We're only 1.9x10-6 of the way to the edge of the universe. Now let's talk about what is happening because of this. The other galaxy is not really moving at 3 times the speed of light or even at the speed of light. It was when it's light started to come to us a 13 billion years ago, but it's subject to the same average inflection point that we are, we're just 13 billion years down the road from it.
To put it another way, the universe has slowed from expanding during that 13.7 billion years from the (1) relativistic speed of 2c (599564800m/s) or (2) the real speed of light (299782450 m/s) all the way down to 627,000 m/s today It's gotten a lot slower over those 13.7 billion years unless you correct this for CBM and spiral motion.
If you use the measured speed we'd be 98% of the way to the inflection point (and you'd be running to grab your umbrella and raincoat) which is part of the reason I think that goes in the wrong direction although it would still mean we have 2% of 13.7 billion years before the inflection point). Instead we're looking at is slowing from the cbm of non-movement all the way up to 627,000 m/s going towards a dead stop at 299782450m/s relative to cbm.
That means that we've slowed down 2.25% of the ways slowed 299155450m/s over a mere 13.7 billion years. It has slowed 2.25% of the way to being at a complete stop, an inflection point. Put another way, we're 1/44 th of the way to the next inflection point. This means that 44 times 13.7 billion years from today we'll be at the inflection point and I'll be around 609 billion years and a half century old. Makes my back hurt just to think about it.
And you...are here!
One footnote, if we've really slowed 98% of the way down then in 2.74 billion years the universe will stop expanding. That's pretty fast but it might be the right time frame, who knows?
Today, I will tell you where I expect the next inflection point to be and why. At this point, inflection point, which I am going to give you with some specificity (using several assumptions) you will know exactly when the universe will suddenly stop expanding and start contracting.
Prepare to set your alarm clock.
Don't worry about reading fast, it won't happen while I'm typing this or while your reading it unless you're reading it far, far into the future after everyone has signed a petition acknowledging that I was smarter than everyone else, I suppose.
As most kindergarten physicists know the universe is expanding and that the farther galaxies "appear" to be be moving faster. We know why this is the case using AuT, but Kindergarten physicists do not know, so I will refer to the fact that the average inflection point over all the spirals stacked to form the universe is in a net expansion state which relates to an inflection point that occurred around 13.7 billion years ago and is affectionately known as "the most recent inflection point from net compression to expansion" or "the big bang" to the kinder (a little German there just for you).
For purposes of this we are going to (1) accept relativistic effects and then (2) reject them and finally (3) we're going to correct for CBR which is the only thing that matters since it's the only point of reference relative to the beginning and end of things for reasons that will be clear..
The farthest object we see is at 13.3 bln light years and is moving away from us (1) at three times the speed of light or (2) the speed of light less a bit. [remember that 1 accepts the relativistic effects and 2, the more accurate measure, rejects them]. However, (3) for CBR it's not moving at all. If it is, as I will discuss shortly, then the universe is really old and you better grab your hat and umbrella.
The universe is young! Relatively speaking, I believe it is 1/44th of its way towards the beginning of its contraction phase.
Let me explain.
The farthest object is 13.3 bln light years away. In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old that means it's essentially at the edge of the universe and it took 13.3 billion years for it's light to reach us which was some 420 million years after it formed. It's essentially at the edge of the universe, but whether we're going to stick with 13.3 billion light years or the 13.7 doesn't matter much because the extra distance isn't important for rounding this off. If you really want to put an alarm on your phone and it will handle the numbers, you can try to get more precise, you'll have the math.
According to relativity the distant galaxy is moving at (1) 3c relative to us which is (3) zero relative to CBR but it's really moving at (2) the speed of light (c) and we know that to be the case because...the initial spirals are all space moving at the speed of light and this is only slowing down a little because it's only 400 million years old. I.E. ct1 changes at the speed of light if you put a speed to it at all.
You and I are in a galaxy that's moving at the relatively slow speed of 627km/s. Earth is actually moving slower than the galaxy relative to cbr but if you start comparing apples to pomegranates you're going to end up with a fruit salad. Anyway, we're a mere 25000 light years from the center of the 13.7 billion light year across universe. We're only 1.9x10-6 of the way to the edge of the universe. Now let's talk about what is happening because of this. The other galaxy is not really moving at 3 times the speed of light or even at the speed of light. It was when it's light started to come to us a 13 billion years ago, but it's subject to the same average inflection point that we are, we're just 13 billion years down the road from it.
To put it another way, the universe has slowed from expanding during that 13.7 billion years from the (1) relativistic speed of 2c (599564800m/s) or (2) the real speed of light (299782450 m/s) all the way down to 627,000 m/s today It's gotten a lot slower over those 13.7 billion years unless you correct this for CBM and spiral motion.
If you use the measured speed we'd be 98% of the way to the inflection point (and you'd be running to grab your umbrella and raincoat) which is part of the reason I think that goes in the wrong direction although it would still mean we have 2% of 13.7 billion years before the inflection point). Instead we're looking at is slowing from the cbm of non-movement all the way up to 627,000 m/s going towards a dead stop at 299782450m/s relative to cbm.
That means that we've slowed down 2.25% of the ways slowed 299155450m/s over a mere 13.7 billion years. It has slowed 2.25% of the way to being at a complete stop, an inflection point. Put another way, we're 1/44 th of the way to the next inflection point. This means that 44 times 13.7 billion years from today we'll be at the inflection point and I'll be around 609 billion years and a half century old. Makes my back hurt just to think about it.
And you...are here!
One footnote, if we've really slowed 98% of the way down then in 2.74 billion years the universe will stop expanding. That's pretty fast but it might be the right time frame, who knows?
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Building an algorithm 15: compendium-why einstein and I were wrong...until I got it right
gravity is an effect not a cause. All the other forces arising from gravity, all other forces are effects
the universe is not a place of events, it is a place of an algorithm being solved for a variable
the universe contracts and expands, but not because of gravity or dark energy which are effects but because the algorithm has average inflection points which spiral towards but never reaches equality or a balance of the positive and negative
the algorithm defines both a positive and negative F-series.
The algorithm allows for stacking of time states because F-series are stackable (1,1,2 is the same as 11,11,22 is the same as 111,111,222 and so on) This qualities extends to stacks on top of stacks.
The positive and negative sides of the algorithm are required to provide for expansion and contraction about a common solution. As the solution moves away there is expansion, as the solution stays parallel (not exactly parallel because of offsets) there is near stability, as the solution moves together there is compression. For each solution this model holds, even as the solutions are stacked leading to an average solution about which the universe expands and contracts.
There is no relative movement in the sense of quantum change. Relative movement instead takes into account (1) that all points must change at the same rate according to a single variable and (2) space (ct1) or some other state provides a matrix and the interaction with the matrix gives the appearance of relative change that is observed.
There is no separation, if there was, then space could be infinitely divided and would lose itself as a point of reference. Instead, there is a finite amount of information from which the definition of pi is defined at any value of x and this information has no separation but is only a solution of yes or no which solution is divided into two separate F-series. The amount of information varies according to the F-series as x increases incrementally.
Parminides (not Einstein, Newton or anyone else) was the father of AuT, I am the Dr. Frankenstein.
The big bang is an average inflection point, one of a very large number of those corresponding to intersecting offset spirals which approach but never achieve equal size or allignment according to the pi type infinite converging series. It is a big bounce, but a defined big bounce.
Einstein defined space time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before according to logic to be an illogical system. Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once. That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time. In fact, that analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning which is contraindicated.
The universe must be an informational based system with lmiits or there would have to be something beyond the universe which would create an infinite system. In fact, the universe has no dimension.
Black holes do not define a singularity. If they did they would all have to drop into the same place and they move in space. Even the earliest versions of the theory recognized that all states must have gravity in order to have the amount observed, that all states were interchangeable (none could drop out of space just because of their weight) and even a cursory observation showed that each state was the exponential informational change for the preceding state. n^2^x where the existence of 2 in the equation showed that the states (ct1-ct5 that we observe) were information states. N, based on observation, proved to be the F-series for that state (2,3,5 for matter for example) and x the state number (4 for matter). This made it clear that the transition observed was ct1 space, ct2 photonic energy, ct3 wave energy, ct4 matter and ct5 black hole material). There was nothing magical about any state although the interaction of states and particularly the interaction of the states with ct1 gave rise to solutions that we call forces when they are linear.
Linearity was originally seen by me incorrectly as movement from the singularity. It later became clear that the movement was from one solution to the F-series equation to the next. Space itself evolved since the definition of pi is based on the changing total amount of information or the total value of x for any universes stacked to make the F-series.
If you are blinded by accepting space as a given, then you cannot see the true nature of the universe as stacked quantum states. Without the stacking of states there would be no history possible which is why the idea of everything happening at once and any point co-existing with all others had to be abandoned, such quantum instances would not give the appearance or illusion of history.
The original use of the F-series came from a model based on gravity from looking at the end of the spectrum. The final use of the F-series came from its value as a building block from the beginning of creation. The curve of gravity changes.
The spiral of the universe corresponds to the spiral of information developed by the author:
o
the universe is not a place of events, it is a place of an algorithm being solved for a variable
the universe contracts and expands, but not because of gravity or dark energy which are effects but because the algorithm has average inflection points which spiral towards but never reaches equality or a balance of the positive and negative
the algorithm defines both a positive and negative F-series.
The algorithm allows for stacking of time states because F-series are stackable (1,1,2 is the same as 11,11,22 is the same as 111,111,222 and so on) This qualities extends to stacks on top of stacks.
The positive and negative sides of the algorithm are required to provide for expansion and contraction about a common solution. As the solution moves away there is expansion, as the solution stays parallel (not exactly parallel because of offsets) there is near stability, as the solution moves together there is compression. For each solution this model holds, even as the solutions are stacked leading to an average solution about which the universe expands and contracts.
There is no relative movement in the sense of quantum change. Relative movement instead takes into account (1) that all points must change at the same rate according to a single variable and (2) space (ct1) or some other state provides a matrix and the interaction with the matrix gives the appearance of relative change that is observed.
There is no separation, if there was, then space could be infinitely divided and would lose itself as a point of reference. Instead, there is a finite amount of information from which the definition of pi is defined at any value of x and this information has no separation but is only a solution of yes or no which solution is divided into two separate F-series. The amount of information varies according to the F-series as x increases incrementally.
Parminides (not Einstein, Newton or anyone else) was the father of AuT, I am the Dr. Frankenstein.
The big bang is an average inflection point, one of a very large number of those corresponding to intersecting offset spirals which approach but never achieve equal size or allignment according to the pi type infinite converging series. It is a big bounce, but a defined big bounce.
Einstein defined space time, but failed to realize that it had been proven 2600 years before according to logic to be an illogical system. Einstein said that the reason for time was so that everything didn't happen at once. That led me down the wrong path in assuming that the universe arose from a finite amount of information allowing a consistent definition of pi and that any point in the universe was merely the expression of the information for a value of time. In fact, that analysis fell apart because it required the universe collapse and that would have required that there be a fixed point of reference, a beginning which is contraindicated.
The universe must be an informational based system with lmiits or there would have to be something beyond the universe which would create an infinite system. In fact, the universe has no dimension.
Black holes do not define a singularity. If they did they would all have to drop into the same place and they move in space. Even the earliest versions of the theory recognized that all states must have gravity in order to have the amount observed, that all states were interchangeable (none could drop out of space just because of their weight) and even a cursory observation showed that each state was the exponential informational change for the preceding state. n^2^x where the existence of 2 in the equation showed that the states (ct1-ct5 that we observe) were information states. N, based on observation, proved to be the F-series for that state (2,3,5 for matter for example) and x the state number (4 for matter). This made it clear that the transition observed was ct1 space, ct2 photonic energy, ct3 wave energy, ct4 matter and ct5 black hole material). There was nothing magical about any state although the interaction of states and particularly the interaction of the states with ct1 gave rise to solutions that we call forces when they are linear.
Linearity was originally seen by me incorrectly as movement from the singularity. It later became clear that the movement was from one solution to the F-series equation to the next. Space itself evolved since the definition of pi is based on the changing total amount of information or the total value of x for any universes stacked to make the F-series.
If you are blinded by accepting space as a given, then you cannot see the true nature of the universe as stacked quantum states. Without the stacking of states there would be no history possible which is why the idea of everything happening at once and any point co-existing with all others had to be abandoned, such quantum instances would not give the appearance or illusion of history.
The original use of the F-series came from a model based on gravity from looking at the end of the spectrum. The final use of the F-series came from its value as a building block from the beginning of creation. The curve of gravity changes.
The spiral of the universe corresponds to the spiral of information developed by the author:
o
a primitive discussion of einstein and hologram theory
Still stuck with everything happening at once but beginning to uncover the problems in the theory
A compendium of all the information developed still clinging to the wrong ideas
The first edition of the work that incorporated (along with a bunch of old information) the correct method of defining the universe, the second edition of this coming this year
Building an algorithm 14: ct1-speed and gravity and a non-steady state universe
Newton and Einstein math models predict that a static universe would not work. In this way they incorrectly state that the universe must be either expanding or contracting and not static.
AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.
Also AuT suggest that the "universe" is neither expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the average is either expanding or contracting.
However, at any point the universe is unbalanced.or it would become non-linear and is both expanding in portions of the solution and contracting in portions of the solution even at inflection points, although the theory is that the proportion of expanding at the end of any compression point is less than the inflection point before corresponding to the evolving solution of pi.
It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4) increases speed. That is between F(x) and F(x-1) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).
It is also suggested that if the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct1 states than you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation.
This in turn suggests that in a compression algorithm, ct4 or 5 in particular, more ct1 is circulated more quickly. This suggests that in a compression state that the solution over a given set of separate quantum states remains more concentrated but that the circulation speed between the outermost quantum states at least and ct1 states occurs more often.
Presumably, "more" gravity is possible from the ct(4) state over a given set of locations over a certain amount of time. That is as more ct1 space is squeezed out by the presence of multiple ct4 states, it generates more gravity in a given location but also should have more time dilation outside of the more concentrated areas which should be capable of observation in a system. The alternative is that the concentration of ct1 states with ct4 states is not affected by the density of the ct1 state.
In this way, speed and gravity effects of ct1 solutions in proximity to ct4 affect it in a similar fashion which suggests that one is the effect in any single F(x) solution and results from the change between F(x) solutions based on the interface of ct1 and ct4 in adjacent solutions with the same ct1 states increasing concentration and different ct1 states creating speed.
It is also suggested Waves and photons are sufficiently spread out so that the amount of ct1 is not crowded out which follows that the amount of ct1 contacting those two states is constant since none is crowded out by a compression solution giving them a constant maximum speed relative to ct1.
AuT correctly points out that the universe is not static at all, that change is an absolute requirement in the solution to the single variable universe although any particular solution defies both Newton and Einstein by remaining quantum and therefor static.
Also AuT suggest that the "universe" is neither expanding nor contracting but that it merely defines an average which reaches inflection points according to an algorithm and that at the inflection points the average is either expanding or contracting.
However, at any point the universe is unbalanced.or it would become non-linear and is both expanding in portions of the solution and contracting in portions of the solution even at inflection points, although the theory is that the proportion of expanding at the end of any compression point is less than the inflection point before corresponding to the evolving solution of pi.
It is suggested by the model that the amount of ct1 contacted over time by a "higher compression state (e.g. ct4) increases speed. That is between F(x) and F(x-1) if a ct4 has a common solution within a series of adjacent solutions with more ct1 states as opposed to the same ct1 states then it moves faster (compare if it contacts more -ct1 (the opposite spiral solution).
It is also suggested that if the number of ct1 states contacted shifts between a common set of ct1 states than you get the same result which explains gravity giving rise to the same phenomena of time dilation.
This in turn suggests that in a compression algorithm, ct4 or 5 in particular, more ct1 is circulated more quickly. This suggests that in a compression state that the solution over a given set of separate quantum states remains more concentrated but that the circulation speed between the outermost quantum states at least and ct1 states occurs more often.
Presumably, "more" gravity is possible from the ct(4) state over a given set of locations over a certain amount of time. That is as more ct1 space is squeezed out by the presence of multiple ct4 states, it generates more gravity in a given location but also should have more time dilation outside of the more concentrated areas which should be capable of observation in a system. The alternative is that the concentration of ct1 states with ct4 states is not affected by the density of the ct1 state.
In this way, speed and gravity effects of ct1 solutions in proximity to ct4 affect it in a similar fashion which suggests that one is the effect in any single F(x) solution and results from the change between F(x) solutions based on the interface of ct1 and ct4 in adjacent solutions with the same ct1 states increasing concentration and different ct1 states creating speed.
It is also suggested Waves and photons are sufficiently spread out so that the amount of ct1 is not crowded out which follows that the amount of ct1 contacting those two states is constant since none is crowded out by a compression solution giving them a constant maximum speed relative to ct1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)